How to End the Gaza Violence

As of late Friday the ceasefire in Gaza seems to be holding, if
tentatively. While we should be pleased that this round of fighting
appears temporarily on hold, we must realize that without changes in U.S.
foreign policy it is only a matter of time before the killing begins
again.

It feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of
violence broke out in Gaza. At that time, over 1,400 Palestinians were
killed, of which just 235 were combatants. The Israelis lost 13, of which
10 were combatants. At that time, I said of then-President Bush’s
role in the conflict: “It’s our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it.
Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of
fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right
to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look
at it like a concentration camp.”

The U.S. role has not changed under the Obama administration. The same
mistakes continue. As journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote last week: “For
years now, U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support of Israel
has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The
bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and
the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are
paid for, in substantial part, by the U.S. taxpayer….”

Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express U.S.
support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies
the tragicomedy of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. supported the Israeli
side because, he said, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles
raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that
this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so
hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but she refused to meet with elected
Palestinian leaders. Clinton said upon arrival in Israel, “America’s
commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.” Does this
sound like an honest broker?

At the same time, Congress acted with similar ignobility when an
unannounced resolution was brought to the House floor after the business
of the week had been finished; and in less than 30 seconds the
resolution was passed by unanimous consent, without debate and without
most representatives even having heard of it. The resolution, H. Res. 813,
was so one-sided it is not surprising they didn’t want anyone to have
the chance to read and vote on it. Surely at least a handful of my
colleagues would have objected to language such as “The House of
Representatives expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the
State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders.”

U.S. foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of
life and security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the
threat of missiles from Gaza, nor do the Palestinians enjoy their
Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long as Israel can
count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the U.S. taxpayer
it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the
Palestinians feel the one-sided U.S. presence lined up against them, they
will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.

Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful
nations, the U.S. is undermining rather than furthering its security. We
are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do
not right our foreign policy. Ending interventionism in the Middle East
and replacing it with friendship and even-handedness would be a welcome
first step.